Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Present Application vs Unknown on 28 September, 2019
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C. Praveen Kumar
1
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5380 of 2019
ORDER:
1. The present application, under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, came to be filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking quashing of investigation in Crime No.104 of 2019 of Kalamalla Police Station, Kadapa District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 509 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(va) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. The averments in the report show that the informant was a tractor driver under Ramana Reddy - accused and whenever he needs money, he used to take money from Ramana Reddy and as such, he fell due a sum of Rs.40,000/- to him. While so, he got an offer for a job from one, Dastagiri Reddy. Hence, he decided to leave Ramana Reddy, but the condition of Ramana Reddy was that the informant should clear off the debt. Out of Rs.40,000/- debt, the informant is said to have paid Rs.39,000/- to Ramana Reddy by taking a hand loan from Dastagiri Reddy. While things stood thus, on 11.8.2019 at about 5.10 PM, Ramana Reddy came to the house of the informant and stated that the informant is due a sum of Rs.5,000/- and not Rs.1,000/-, to which the informant denied. Thereafter, Ramana Reddy is said to have asked the informant to sit on his motorcycle so as to go to his house where he wants to show a book maintained, in which it was written that the informant has to pay Rs.5,000/-. On that, the informant proceeded along with Ramana Reddy on his motorbike. Ramana Reddy is alleged to have beat him with his hand on his left cheek, which lead to swelling. Then, the mother of the informant, who was present there, asked Ramana Reddy as to why he was beating the informant, for which, 2 Ramana Reddy abused her in filthy language and thereafter the said Ramana Reddy left threatening the informant with dire consequences.
3. Having regard to the above, the above report came to be lodged on 12.8.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only with a view to avoid payment, the informant gave a false report to the Police. Apart from that, he contends that the averments in the report are silent with regard to the incident taking place within the public view.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same contending that these are questions of facts which require to be investigated by the Police.
6. As seen from the record, there is some dispute between the petitioner and the informant with regard to the amount that is due by the informant to the petitioner, but, that by itself cannot be a ground to quash the report on the ground that the same came to be instituted with mala fide intention to wreck vengeance. The issue as to whether the incident took place within the public view or not requires to be investigated into by the Police. At this stage, I do not see any ground for quashing the investigation.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the manner in which the incident took place, there shall be stay of arrest of the petitioner/accused till filing of the charge-sheet.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand dismissed.
________________________________________________ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 28.09.2019 Note : Issue C.C. by 30.9.2019.
3B/O skmr